Non sequitur. In both of your cases, the clinic makes the mistake. The moment a clinic attempts to sue parents who get a "better" kid (your words), the parents would sue the living shit out of them for their mistake and win in court.
"In the circumstances, the Court recognises that the Appellant's desire to have a child of her own, with her Husband, is a desire that is a basic human impulse, and its loss is keenly and deeply felt.
"The ordinary human experience is that parents and children are bound by ties of blood and this fact of biological experience - heredity - carries deep socio-cultural significance...
"And when, as in the present case, a person has been denied this experience due to the negligence of others then she has lost something of profound significance and has suffered a serious wrong.
"This loss of 'affinity' can also result in social stigma and embarrassment arising out of the misperceptions of others, as was the case here."
Who would want to use a search engine so petty as to censor the web and distort search results (their primary and only useful function as far as I'm concerned)
Google already does that with their search results.
over a mischievous TV commercial?
Simply another reason.
If Google were willing to artificially modify their results over something as trivial as that, you can bet they'd do the same for money, political influence, etc.
"Reading the manual"? Please. One of the last manuals I got was written in Chinese. Lot of friggin' help that was. Good device though (digital projector). Just took some poking around forums to figure out the controls.
Where is this council of assholes that prosecute (no doubt unsuccessfully) anybody viewing Wikipedia in a school. And I'd *really* like a cite that says Wikipedia links or articles are a felony to include in a text message.
Or maybe your sloppy sentence just meant pornographic images, which can come from many places. An entirely different thing.
You do not understand copyright. You do not understand sharing either. Just because you're not in the group the owner shares with doesn't mean it isn't shared.
Slashdot Mirror
Might odd definition of "they have".
Hush. There's a narrative to uphold.
Non sequitur. In both of your cases, the clinic makes the mistake. The moment a clinic attempts to sue parents who get a "better" kid (your words), the parents would sue the living shit out of them for their mistake and win in court.
The man and woman went in together. He jerked off in a cup. That sperm was what was to be used.
Yeah, they were to use specific DNA.
From the court's decision:
"In the circumstances, the Court recognises that the Appellant's desire to have a child of her own, with her Husband, is a desire that is a basic human impulse, and its loss is keenly and deeply felt.
"The ordinary human experience is that parents and children are bound by ties of blood and this fact of biological experience - heredity - carries deep socio-cultural significance...
"And when, as in the present case, a person has been denied this experience due to the negligence of others then she has lost something of profound significance and has suffered a serious wrong.
"This loss of 'affinity' can also result in social stigma and embarrassment arising out of the misperceptions of others, as was the case here."
Because this is only the last of a series of revelations that research papers have been fraudulently produced?
Having read your little screed, you struck me as being incredibly pompous, thinking your ideas are "right" and everyone else is "wrong".
Like your pretending your suggestions are good ones?
Agreed. The only one that's close.
Yes - #bringbackourgirls
Any movie that names an element "Unobtainium" cannot be referenced as science anything.
Over the long term and overall. Utopias don't and can't exist. Comparing human progress to them is apples and imaginary oranges.
It was one of those come-by-mail kits. The kind where you assemble everything from the resisters up. Very early.
Google already does that with their search results.
Simply another reason.
See my first response.
Not even new to the high-speed info age: Fatty Arbuckle.
Oh, to add to that. Their website? A stub.
"Reading the manual"? Please. One of the last manuals I got was written in Chinese. Lot of friggin' help that was. Good device though (digital projector). Just took some poking around forums to figure out the controls.
Now if they would only figure out what Ingsoc stood for.
Yes, interesting that they demand exactly the same as their opposite extremists, demanding everyone else believe as they do.
Where is this council of assholes that prosecute (no doubt unsuccessfully) anybody viewing Wikipedia in a school. And I'd *really* like a cite that says Wikipedia links or articles are a felony to include in a text message.
Or maybe your sloppy sentence just meant pornographic images, which can come from many places. An entirely different thing.
Now that you've been given a cite, what's your response?
Never trust the motives of a crook complaining about fairness.
That is exactly their mission. "You made it? Nice. I want it but don't want to pay for it through the channels you desire. Fine, I'll just take it."
You do not understand copyright. You do not understand sharing either. Just because you're not in the group the owner shares with doesn't mean it isn't shared.
To a business, saving money *is* making money.
So.... you can buy the fifty to hundred dollar text but $15 is gonna break you? Not buying it.